DOCSLIB.ORG

Investigation and Evaluation of Predator Kills and Attacks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION OF PREDATOR KILLS AND ATTACKS CONSERVATION OFFICER AL LAY This package contains basic information in regards to predator attacks, kills and feeding methods for the five main predators which reside within British Columbia and may prey on livestock. The five predators are Grizzly Bear, Black Bear, Cougar, Wolf and Coyote. This information will assist the Livestock Producer in determining which of the above predators may be responsible for damage caused. WOLVES Cattle/calves Being a pack animal wolves, will attack a single or a small number of animals at one time. The attacks are normally to the rear of the animal, where the wolf or wolves will tear at the upper hindquarter, rectum, or vulva. This will cause the prey animal to go into shock from blood loss, may travel a distance, lie down, stiffen and eventually succumb to the injuries. The wolves will follow the heavy scent trail left and begin to consume as long as the prey animal poses no threat. Another method of attack is disembowelling, whereas the wolf/s will run beside the prey animal, bite into the flank area and pull the hide away from the stomach section, allowing the stomach, intestines to fall away. Both these methods are common and very efficient for a pack animal. One or two wolves do most of the work resulting in a number of animals being able to feed. Wolves attack this way to protect themselves, if a wolf is injured and unable to travel death is certain. Sheep/lambs Due to a sheep herd usually being close to residences and human activity, wolves don’t prey on sheep often. When wolves do attack domestic sheep the same methods come into play, biting and lunging from the rear of the prey animal. If a wolf pack is involved bites to the top of the neck may be evident along with damage to the rear. Lambs may be bitten on top of the neck or back and carried away. In this case very little evidence is found. If a pack kills an adult sheep, consumption will be extensive. Carcass will be torn apart and spread over a large area, possibly all bones consumed as well. Wolves require 6 to 8 lbs of flesh a day to survive, gorging is common, once a wolf has fed heavily, may not feed again for days. POULTRY/PETS Again due to the close proximity to human activity these attacks are rare. Wolves may be aggressive towards domestic dogs, whether accompanied by humans or not. AVERAGE CANINE SPACING – UPPER CANINE – 4.5 – 5.5 CMS LOWER CANINE – 3.0 – 4.0 CMS CANINE DIAMETER – 1.0 -1.6 CMS WOLF TRACK Wolf tracks are quite large, with the front paws being 1/5th larger than the hind foot. Wolves are very protective of their feet, resulting in the wolf’s preference of travelling along roads, trails, or pathways. COYOTES Coyotes are the most common predator found within British Columbia. Usually preys on smaller livestock, sheep, lambs, calves, poultry and pets. On rare occasion able to kill larger animals if conditions are right, (Cows calving). Very human conscious, will soon loose fear of buildings, dogs, human activity. Intelligent but wary will continue to kill in area of past reward. Method of attack: Will give chase biting on hind legs of prey until such time as prey slows, then will attack the underside of neck, suffocating the prey or tearing out the throat. Will find numerous bite punctures on neck of prey, caused by coyote repositioning its grasp. Will also rip stomach hide of prey animal much like the wolf. Smaller prey will be dragged or carried off. Larger prey consumed on site. May find evidence of chase, on adult sheep, a wool trail found where coyote was giving chase and attacking. Attacks usually occur at night or at dawn and dusk. Will consume entire kill, except for the larger bones, hide and paunch contents. AVERAGE CANINE SPACING – UPPER CANINE WIDTH – 2.0 – 3.5 CMS LOWER CANINE WIDTH – 2.3 – 2.8 CMS CANINE DIAMETER – .4 – .7 CMS COYOTE TRACK Like other canines the coyote front paws are larger than the rear. Coyotes like to travel field edges and trails where cover is available. COUGAR Cougar are very common within British Columbia, found throughout the Province. Nocturnal and wary, but will become brazen when hunting or feeding. A very task oriented, focused animal, when locked onto a prey animal. Will lose all fear until kill is complete. Will take any sized prey if available, horses, cattle, sheep, goats, pets are most common. Attacks large prey usually on underside of neck, crushing the windpipe and puncturing the neck. With smaller prey cougar will usually attack the top of the neck, base of the skull or top of the skull. Kills are usually extremely fast with little struggle from the prey. First feeding by the cougar may be the blood escaping from the prey. Cougar may make multiple kills on sheep at one time, almost always at night, with little feeding on any but one, which will be dragged into cover and buried. Cougar are slow methodical hunters and feeders, may be at location of kill for days. While feeding cougar may lick away hair from hide of prey animal, hide may also appear cut with a smooth edge. Usually all kills will be buried if cougar is returning, once carcass turns rancid cougar may abandon. AVERAGE CANINE SPACING – UPPER CANINE WIDTH – 3.8 – 5.7 CMS LOWER CANINE WIDTH 2.6 – 4.5 CMS CANINE DIAMETER – 1.1 – 1.3 CMS COUGAR TRACK Again cougar’s front paws are larger than the rear. Tracks appear round in shape compared to canines, also no appearance of claw indications. Cougar will not extend their claws unless attacking an animal or while climbing. They have a distinctive three lobed center pad on paws which are evident in tracks. BLACK BEAR Black Bear are numerous throughout British Columbia. Through learned behaviour can become a very efficient predator on livestock. Will attack all sizes of prey, but usually prefers smaller animals such as young cattle, sheep, goats and swine are the most common. Very opportunists, if the prey is available will attempt to make a kill. Usually if the bear is a novice at attacking, a number of livestock will be maimed or injured. All bears are maulers when it comes to attacking and killing. They attempt to pull the prey down using their size and weight. Once the bear has hold of the prey, biting will take place above the withers along the spine. As long as the prey continues to move and struggle the attack will continue. Look for heavy disturbance around attack site. Final killing bites will take place on the upper neck of prey, which is evident with multiple bites and heavy damage to the spine. Black Bear will carry or drag kills to cover and approximately 10 – 15% of the bears will semi-bury the kill. Will protect their kill aggressively, and consume all but the larger bones and hide. A portion of bears prefer to leave the carcass until it rots and will return to feed on maggots and waste. Carcasses that have been fed on may have the hide pulled down over the leg bones. Black Bear will consume 90% of the carcass if given the opportunity. Bears will also claim other predator’s kills. AVERAGE CANINE SPACING – UPPER CANINE WIDTH – 5.5 -6.5 CMS LOWER CANINE WIDTH – 4.5 – 5.5 CMS CANINE DIAMETER – 1.5 – 1.9 CMS BLACK BEAR TRACKS Black bear tracks have the appearance of human foot prints. In the right conditions the front bear tracks may have slight claw marks showing. Black Bear have small sharp claws on all four feet, which allows them to climb and grasp while attacking prey. Black Bear tracks unlike Grizzly Bear usually show a wedge indent shape on the hind foot. GRIZZLY BEAR The Grizzly Bear is largest predator in British Columbia. Usually found in the more remote areas. Will prey on all sizes of livestock but prefers larger prey. Cattle, horses, sheep, goats are preferred. Like the Black Bear, Grizzly Bear are maulers which will attempt to bring the prey to the ground, using their weight and strength and biting at the same time. Grizzly Bear will continue to bite until such time the prey animal is dead. Usually Grizzly Bear kills will not have a definite kill bite, but will have multiple bites and heavy damage to the spine of the prey. Look for signs of struggle in area when large prey is taken. Grizzlies will carry or drag kills to cover and will most likely bury carcass extensively. Grizzly Bear will aggressively protect the kill until such time as it is totally consumed. Grizzly Bears will also claim other predator’s kills and will consume if carcass is putrid and rotten. AVERAGE CANINE SPACING – UPPER CANINE WIDTH – 5.5 -6.5 CMS LOWER CANINE WIDTH – 5.5 – 6.5 CMS CANINE DIAMETER – 2.1 – 2.6 CMS GRIZZLY BEAR TRACKS Grizzly Bear like the Black Bear leave tracks that appear human like. Grizzly Bear tracks will usually have claw marks showing from their front paws. These claw marks may extent 3 to 4 inches in front of toe pad. Grizzly Bear also have the tendency to walk pigeon toed which will appear in tracks left. Due to their large dull claws and weight, majority of Grizzly Bear are unable to climb trees. INVESTIGATION OF ATTACKS AND KILLS All five of these predators found in British Columbia do attack, kill and feed on livestock.
Recommended publications
  • Northeastern Coyote/Coywolf Taxonomy and Admixture: a Meta-Analysis

    Northeastern Coyote/Coywolf Taxonomy and Admixture: a Meta-Analysis

    Way and Lynn Northeastern coyote taxonomy Copyright © 2016 by the IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group. ISSN 1478-2677 Synthesis Northeastern coyote/coywolf taxonomy and admixture: A meta-analysis Jonathan G. Way1* and William S. Lynn2 1 Eastern Coyote Research, 89 Ebenezer Road, Osterville, MA 02655, USA. Email [email protected] 2 Marsh Institute, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610, USA. Email [email protected] * Correspondence author Keywords: Canis latrans, Canis lycaon, Canis lupus, Canis oriens, cladogamy, coyote, coywolf, eastern coyote, eastern wolf, hybridisation, meta-analysis, northeastern coyote, wolf. Abstract A flurry of recent papers have attempted to taxonomically characterise eastern canids, mainly grey wolves Canis lupus, eastern wolves Canis lycaon or Canis lupus lycaon and northeastern coyotes or coywolves Canis latrans, Canis latrans var. or Canis latrans x C. lycaon, in northeastern North America. In this paper, we performed a meta-analysis on northeastern coyote taxonomy by comparing results across studies to synthesise what is known about genetic admixture and taxonomy of this animal. Hybridisation or cladogamy (the crossing between any given clades) be- tween coyotes, wolves and domestic dogs created the northeastern coyote, but the animal now has little genetic in- put from its parental species across the majority of its northeastern North American (e.g. the New England states) range except in areas where they overlap, such as southeastern Canada, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and the mid- Atlantic area. The northeastern coyote has roughly 60% genetic influence from coyote, 30% wolf and 10% domestic dog Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris. There is still disagreement about the amount of eastern wolf versus grey wolf in its genome, and additional SNP genotyping needs to sample known eastern wolves from Algonquin Pro- vincial Park, Ontario to verify this.
  • Educator's Guide

    Educator's Guide

    Educator’s Guide the jill and lewis bernard family Hall of north american mammals inside: • Suggestions to Help You come prepared • essential questions for Student Inquiry • Strategies for teaching in the exhibition • map of the Exhibition • online resources for the Classroom • Correlations to science framework • glossary amnh.org/namammals Essential QUESTIONS Who are — and who were — the North as tundra, winters are cold, long, and dark, the growing season American Mammals? is extremely short, and precipitation is low. In contrast, the abundant precipitation and year-round warmth of tropical All mammals on Earth share a common ancestor and and subtropical forests provide optimal growing conditions represent many millions of years of evolution. Most of those that support the greatest diversity of species worldwide. in this hall arose as distinct species in the relatively recent Florida and Mexico contain some subtropical forest. In the past. Their ancestors reached North America at different boreal forest that covers a huge expanse of the continent’s times. Some entered from the north along the Bering land northern latitudes, winters are dry and severe, summers moist bridge, which was intermittently exposed by low sea levels and short, and temperatures between the two range widely. during the Pleistocene (2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago). Desert and scrublands are dry and generally warm through- These migrants included relatives of New World cats (e.g. out the year, with temperatures that may exceed 100°F and dip sabertooth, jaguar), certain rodents, musk ox, at least two by 30 degrees at night. kinds of elephants (e.g.
  • Government Data Confirm That Grizzly Bears Have a Negligible Effect on U.S. Cattle and Sheep Industries

    Government Data Confirm That Grizzly Bears Have a Negligible Effect on U.S. Cattle and Sheep Industries

    Government data confirm that grizzly bears have a negligible effect on U.S. cattle and sheep industries In the United States, data show that grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) kill few cattle and sheep. Livestock predation data collected by various governmental bodies differ significantly, however. The most recent data published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA)1 indicate losses many times greater than those collected by states and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). For instance, the USDA claims grizzly bears killed 3,162 cattle in nine states (in 2015), while the FWS verified only 123 such losses in three states (in 2013). Montana’s Board of Livestock’s data show that between 2015 and 2018 cattle losses from grizzly bears numbered 61 or less annually. The USDA’s methodology involves collecting data from a few mostly unverified sources, which the USDA then extrapolated statewide without calculating standard errors or using models to test relationships among various mortality factors.2 This contravenes the scientific method and results in exaggerated livestock losses attributed to native carnivores and dogs. Unfortunately, this misinformation informs public policies that harm native carnivores, including countless legislative attacks on grizzly bears, wolves and the Endangered Species Act. The Humane Society of the United States analyzed the USDA’s embellished predation numbers. Their data show that farmers and ranchers lose nine times more cattle and sheep to health, weather, birthing and theft problems than to all predators combined. In the USDA reports, “predators” include mammalian carnivores (e.g., cougars, wolves and bears), avian carnivores (e.g., eagles and hawks) and domestic dogs.
  • Livestock Concerns with Feral Hogs

    Livestock Concerns with Feral Hogs

    Livestock Concerns with Feral Hogs Aaron Sumrall Newton Co. Extension Agent History of Feral Hogs • Introduce to New World by De Soto in 1539 as a food source. • Made it to Texas in 1680’s. • Population explosion beginning in 1930 thru now……Why? – Great Depression….hardship of the 30’s. – Imported for hunting opportunities. What is the Current Status? • Population estimates of >1 million. • Occupy 244 of 254 counties. • 2007- Caused $52 million in Ag only. • $200/Hog/Year in Damage. • 42 of 50 States. Feral Hog Biology • Life expectancy of 4-5 years. • Reproductively capable of 6 months if nutrition is available. – 1st litter can be weaned before 1st birthday of sow. • Gestation of 115 days. • Average littler size of 4-6 piglets. • What do you call a group of feral hogs? Feral Hog Biology….Continued • Sounders typically of 6-12 individuals can be >30. • Mature hogs from 110-300 lbs. • Come in 3 flavors. – Eurasian Wild Boar – Domesticated hogs released – Combination of the two Areas of Feral Hog Damage • Agricultural:$52 million in 2007. • Disease • Predation • Habitat Destruction • Accidents • Sensitive Areas……example Wetlands. • Residential • Recreational • $800 million animal in Ag/Environmental. Areas of Feral Hog Damage...Continued • Length of tie required for land recovery. • Loss of topsoil. • Destruction of sensitive habitat. • Predation of livestock and wildlife population. • Introduction of other invasive species. – Reduction or loss of native vegetation. • Reduced water quality. – Roadway damage, etc…. What are Legal Options? • Hunting • Trapping • Dogs • Snares • Ariel Gunning What else is Legal? • Are you required to hold a hunting license shoot/hunt hogs? –It Depends!!! Is it Legal to Raise Feral Hogs? • NO! It is not legal to posses or feed feral hogs without a permit.
  • Comparative Food Habits of Deer and Three Classes of Livestock Author(S): Craig A

    Comparative Food Habits of Deer and Three Classes of Livestock Author(S): Craig A

    Comparative Food Habits of Deer and Three Classes of Livestock Author(s): Craig A. McMahan Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Oct., 1964), pp. 798-808 Published by: Allen Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3798797 . Accessed: 13/07/2012 12:15 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Allen Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Wildlife Management. http://www.jstor.org COMPARATIVEFOOD HABITSOF DEERAND THREECLASSES OF LIVESTOCK CRAIGA. McMAHAN,Texas Parksand Wildlife Department,Hunt Abstract: To observe forage competition between deer and livestock, the forage selections of a tame deer (Odocoileus virginianus), a goat, a sheep, and a cow were observed under four range conditions, using both stocked and unstocked experimental pastures, on the Kerr Wildlife Management Area in the Edwards Plateau region of Texas in 1959. The animals were trained in 2 months of preliminary testing. The technique employed consisted of recording the number of bites taken of each plant species by each animal during a 45-minute grazing period in each pasture each week for 1 year.
  • A Sex Worker Rights and Anti-Trafficking Initiative

    A Sex Worker Rights and Anti-Trafficking Initiative

    ANTI-TRAFFICKING REVIEW 12 (2019): 140-154 The ‘Prioritizing Safety for Sex Workers Policy’: A sex worker rights and anti-trafficking initiative Alexandra Lutnick Abstract This article presents a case study of how sex worker and anti-trafficking organisations and activists in San Francisco, California, worked together to develop and pass the ‘Prioritizing Safety for Sex Workers Policy’. This policy, as enacted by the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office and the San Francisco Police Department, creates a legal environment where people can come forward and report to law enforcement when they are a victim of or witness to an array of violent crimes while engaged in sex work, and not be arrested or prosecuted for their involvement in that criminalised behaviour or for any misdemeanour drug offences. The article details how the groups came together and the challenges they faced while developing the policy. The work was fuelled by the recognition that no one wants people in the sex industry to experience violence. That is true whether selling sex is their choice, influenced by their life circumstances, or something they are being forced or coerced to do. The Prioritizing Safety for Sex Workers Policy is a unique example of the way in which sex workers, people who have experienced trafficking, service providers, activists, women’s rights policymakers, the police department, and the District Attorney’s office came together around a common goal. Keywords: sex work, human trafficking, policy, coalitions, violence, crime victim Suggested citation: A Lutnick, ‘The “Prioritizing Safety for Sex Workers Policy”: A sex worker rights and anti-trafficking initiative’, Anti-Trafficking Review, issue 12, 2019, pp.
  • COYOTES Animal Damage Control Lakewood, Colorado 80228

    COYOTES Animal Damage Control Lakewood, Colorado 80228

    Jeffrey S. Green Assistant Regional Director USDA-APHIS- COYOTES Animal Damage Control Lakewood, Colorado 80228 F. Robert Henderson Extension Specialist Animal Damage Control Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas 66506-1600 Mark D. Collinge State Director USDA-APHIS- Animal Damage Control Boise, Idaho 83705 Fig. 1. Coyote, Canis latrans Damage Prevention and Shed lambing, kidding, and calving Toxicants usually reduce coyote predation. Control Methods M-44 ejector devices for use with Remove carrion to help limit coyote sodium cyanide-loaded plastic Exclusion populations. capsules. They are most effective Produce livestock in confinement. Frightening Agents and during cold weather (fall to spring). Repellents Herd livestock into pens at night. Livestock protection collars (LPC) Guarding dogs: Some dogs have containing Compound 1080 Exclusion fences (net-wire and/or (sodium monofluoroacetate) are electric), properly constructed and significantly reduced coyote predation. registered for use only in certain maintained, can aid significantly in states. reducing predation. Donkeys and llamas: Some are Fumigants Cultural Methods and aggressive toward canines and have Habitat Modification reduced coyote predation. Gas cartridges are registered as a burrow (den) fumigant. Select pastures that have a lower Sonic and visual repellents: Strobe incidence of predation to reduce lights, sirens, propane cannons, and Trapping exposure of livestock to predation. others have reduced predation on both sheep and calves. Leghold traps (Nos. 3 and 4) are Herding of livestock generally reduces effective and are the most versatile Chemical odor and taste repellents: predation due to human presence control tool. during the herding period. None have shown sufficient effectiveness to be registered for Snares are effective where coyotes pass Change lambing, kidding, and calving use.
  • Heraldic Terms

    Heraldic Terms

    HERALDIC TERMS The following terms, and their definitions, are used in heraldry. Some terms and practices were used in period real-world heraldry only. Some terms and practices are used in modern real-world heraldry only. Other terms and practices are used in SCA heraldry only. Most are used in both real-world and SCA heraldry. All are presented here as an aid to heraldic research and education. A LA CUISSE, A LA QUISE - at the thigh ABAISED, ABAISSÉ, ABASED - a charge or element depicted lower than its normal position ABATEMENTS - marks of disgrace placed on the shield of an offender of the law. There are extreme few records of such being employed, and then only noted in rolls. (As who would display their device if it had an abatement on it?) ABISME - a minor charge in the center of the shield drawn smaller than usual ABOUTÉ - end to end ABOVE - an ambiguous term which should be avoided in blazon. Generally, two charges one of which is above the other on the field can be blazoned better as "in pale an X and a Y" or "an A and in chief a B". See atop, ensigned. ABYSS - a minor charge in the center of the shield drawn smaller than usual ACCOLLÉ - (1) two shields side-by-side, sometimes united by their bottom tips overlapping or being connected to each other by their sides; (2) an animal with a crown, collar or other item around its neck; (3) keys, weapons or other implements placed saltirewise behind the shield in a heraldic display.
  • Grizzly Bear Fact Sheet

    Grizzly Bear Fact Sheet

    Identify Grizzly from Black Bears Grizzly bears typically weigh 100-200 kg (females) to 200-300 kg (males) which is slightly more than black bears. Grizzly bears have a shoulder hump, range in colour from blonde to black and may have silver or light- tipped guard hairs on their head, hump and back. A grizzly bear’s ears are rounded and appear smaller than the black bear, while the black bear has more pointed, noticeable ears and no shoulder hump. Grizzly bear claws are longer than those of black bears and may have a light-coloured stripe. In grizzly bear ISBN: 978-0-7785-8683-8 (Printed Version) tracks, the tips of the front claws usu- 978-0-7785-8683-8 (Online Version) ally leave imprints in front of the paw Printed July 2009 pad, and the toes are set in a nearly straight line. In black bear tracks, the claw imprints are difficult to see, and the front toes form an obvious arc. Reproduction Range Grizzly bear numbers are limited by a slow reproductive rate. This is Grizzly bears can be found caused by a relatively high age of first reproduction, small litter siz- in Alberta from the Montana es, and long periods between litters. In Alberta, most female grizzlies border, along the mountains do not have their first litter until they are at least four years old and and foothills and continuing usually have only one or two cubs. The cubs are born in January or north through the western February and stay with their mother for two to five years.
  • Comparisons of Laterality Between Wolves and Domesticated Dogs (Canis Lupus Familiaris)

    Comparisons of Laterality Between Wolves and Domesticated Dogs (Canis Lupus Familiaris)

    Comparisons of laterality between wolves and domesticated dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) By Lindsey Drew Submitted to the Board of Biology School of Natural Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science Purchase College State University of New York May 2015 ______________________________ Sponsor: Dr. Lee Ehrman _______________________________ Co-Sponsor: Rebecca Bose of the Wolf Conservation Center Table of Contents Abstract Page 2 Introduction Pages 3-18 Materials and Methods Pages 18-25 Results Pages 25-28 Discussion Pages 29-30 1 Abstract I compared laterality in Canis lupus familiaris (domesticated dog) with: Canis lupus occidentalis (Canadian Rocky Mountain wolves), Canis rufus (red wolves), Canis lupus baileyi (Mexican wolves), and Canis lupus arctos (Artic wolf), all related. Each wolf species was grouped into a single category and was compared to domesticated dogs. The methods performed on domesticated dogs were the KongTM test and the step test. For wolves the PVC test was created to simulate the KongTM test and a step test for comparison. My hypothesis was that Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus will show consistent lateralized preferences between both species. The significance of this study is that laterality in Canis lupus familiaris has been studied multiple times with varying results. The purpose is to determine the possibility of laterality in Canis lupus familiaris being a conserved trait. This study has the potential to give greater meaning to laterality and the benefits of right or left sidedness or handedness. The total amount of paw touches recorded under each category, for the step test in dogs were 280 (50.5%) left and 274 (49.5%) right, for the KongTM test there were 278 left (50.3%) and 275 right (49.7%).
  • South American Camelids – Origin of the Species

    South American Camelids – Origin of the Species

    SOUTH AMERICAN CAMELIDS – ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES PLEISTOCENE ANCESTOR Old World Camels VicunaLLAMA Guanaco Alpaca Hybrids Lama Dromedary Bactrian LAMA Llamas were not always confined to South America; abundant llama-like remains were found in Pleistocene deposits in the Rocky Mountains and in Central America. Some of the fossil llamas were much larger than current forms. Some species remained in North America during the last ice ages. Llama-like animals would have been a common sight in 25,000 years ago, in modern-day USA. The camelid lineage has a good fossil record indicating that North America was the original home of camelids, and that Old World camels crossed over via the Bering land bridge & after the formation of the Isthmus of Panama three million years ago; it allowed camelids to spread to South America as part of the Great American Interchange, where they evolved further. Meanwhile, North American camelids died out about 40 million years ago. Alpacas and vicuñas are in genus Vicugna. The genera Lama and Vicugna are, with the two species of true camels. Alpaca (Vicugna pacos) is a domesticated species of South American camelid. It resembles a small llama in superficial appearance. Alpacas and llamas differ in that alpacas have straight ears and llamas have banana-shaped ears. Aside from these differences, llamas are on average 30 to 60 centimeters (1 to 2 ft) taller and proportionally bigger than alpacas. Alpacas are kept in herds that graze on the level heights of the Andes of Ecuador, southern Peru, northern Bolivia, and northern Chile at an altitude of 3,500 m (11,000 ft) to 5,000 m (16,000 ft) above sea-level, throughout the year.
  • How People Should Respond When Encountering a Large Carnivore: Opinions of Wildlife Professionals Dy L a N E

    How People Should Respond When Encountering a Large Carnivore: Opinions of Wildlife Professionals Dy L a N E

    Human–Wildlife Conflicts 2(2):194–199, Fall 2008 How people should respond when encountering a large carnivore: opinions of wildlife professionals DYLA N E. BRO wn , 507 Silo Loop, Kinsey, Montana 59338, USA [email protected] MI C HAEL R. CO N OVER , Jack H. Berryman Institute, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322-5230, USA Abstract: We conducted telephone surveys of wildlife professionals who work with large carnivores to ask their opinions about how people should respond to avoid being injured when confronted by a black bear (Ursus americana), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), mountain lion (Puma concolor), or gray wolf (Canis lupus). The respondents agreed that the most appropriate response was to try to increase the distance between a person and the carnivore. In the event of an attack by a black bear, mountain lion, or wolf, most respondents said to fight back. Opinion was divided over the best response for an individual who was being attacked by a grizzly bear, but a slight majority of professionals said to fight back if the attack was predatory and be passive if the attack was defensive; however, respondents also noted that many victims would be unable to identify the bear’s motive. If a black bear came into camp, most respondents said that a person should aggressively encourage the bear to leave and to fight back against a bear that enters a tent at night, regardless of species. Respondents unanimously agreed that bear pepper-spray is effective in defending against an attack. While any encounter with a large carnivore can be fatal to the person involved, we believe that selecting the right course of action increases the odds that the victim can escape without injury.